morriswalters wrote:I'm unsure how much difference there is between the two positions.

It's the same distinction we make between accepting the reality of an unjust world yet still opposing its injustice.

"Unjust" might be a strong word here. One has every right to be annoyed by idiots in public, but there is nothing inherently unjust about being looked at or having your photo taken unknowingly while in public; except in rare cases involving celebrities or semi-private places, they aren't really harming you. If you want to contend that others should be more tolerant of your harmless (if offensive) behavior in public, you can't really complain about others' harmless (if offensive) behavior towards you in response.

lutzj wrote:"Unjust" might be a strong word here. One has every right to be annoyed by idiots in public, but there is nothing inherently unjust about being looked at or having your photo taken unknowingly while in public; except in rare cases involving celebrities or semi-private places, they aren't really harming you. If you want to contend that others should be more tolerant of your harmless (if offensive) behavior in public, you can't really complain about others' harmless (if offensive) behavior towards you in response.

I was using a metaphor to illustrate something; 'unjust' isn't the word I would use to describe this situation. But the distinction between acknowledging the way things are versus expressing your right to something different is the same as the distinction we make between acknowledging an unjust world versus opposing that injustice.

Nevertheless, I contend that it is very feasible to harm people by taking pictures or looking at them. Harm is difficult to quantify, and I am comfortable (within reason) leaving its definition to those who claim injury. The important question then becomes whether or not we should do anything to address that harm. What would the costs be? What would the rewards be? If the rewards outweigh the costs, we should give thought to taking action. If not, we should move on.

As someone who isn't interested in prosecuting every case of non-consensual photography (it would be too costly, and the rewards far too small), I'm comfortable with a legal structure that gives significant leighway for people to act freely in public spaces, but contains provisions to address extreme behavior (i.e., someone continually taking pictures against your consent, following you, otherwise harassing you when you've made it clear your boundaries are being invaded, etc). Otherwise, the reason I'm making so much noise here is because I find the initial claim absurd--that we don't have a right to outrage when dicks act like dicks, or that taking your top off means you've given up your right to be treated with civility and respect.

Mavketl wrote:And to be honest, I genuinely don't get what your point is. "Women who go topless can expect people to stare"? Nobody disagrees with that. "Women who go topless give up their right to complain about people being jerks"? Everybody disagrees with that - I'm kind of hoping that includes you. So what is it? What about the attitude of a group of people in the topfree movement do you consider problematic?

King Author has not yet responded to Mavketl's really good question about what KA is actually asking. I can't say it better myself, so I've just quoted it, and would really like KA to answer it.

I have one hypothesis: perhaps the women KA heard talking were actually saying that it shouldn't be legal for women to go topless, because if women went topless they'd be started at and being srated at is uncomfortable. No-one has yet suggested that this is what KA meant, but, if it is, I can see why KA thought that was an unreasonable opinion for anyone to hold. I agree, but I doubt that anyone actually holds this opinion.

If KA has a problem with topfree activists who don't want their breasts to be sexualized: that's the entire point of the movement. Many women, including myself, don't think that my bare breasts should be any more sexualized than any guy's bare breasts, and that's why they want to be able to have a bare chest in public. Yes, the process of getting there is going to include women's bare chests being sexualized, but that's part and parcel of the injustice of the status quo, not some separate issue that can be discussed in isolation.

In some parts of the world, a woman's hair is sexualised. In the West, it isn't.

In some parts of the world, women walk around topless all the time. Every day, 24/7, everywhere they go. Yes, this would probably be an unintegrated tropical tribe, but the point is that women's breasts can in fact be non-sexual if the culture makes it so.

Some western women would like to change the culture they live in into one where they can have non-sexualised breasts, just like they currently have non-sexualised hair. That seems like a valid goal to have, since it would give them the same freedom that a man has when he decides it's too hot to wear a damn shirt. The road to that change in culture will be bumpy, yes. They know that.

Is that a reasonable summary of the issue?

TEAM SHIVAHNPretty much the best team ever

You cannot surgically graft enough middle fingers to my body to express how fed up i am with this.- Tomlidich the second

In response to the original post, if being topless were made legal, that would in no way alter any of the following:

The right of people to take pictures of things they see in public. If I like what I see and decide to take a picture of it, that is my right in public. Be it a national monument, a stunning sunset, a car on a rooftop, or a beautiful woman.

The right of people to free speech. If I see someone who I want to take a picture of, I am completely within my rights to say “Excuse me, will you pose for a photograph please?” She is completely within her rights to say, “I find your objectification of my body entirely objectionable,” or to remain silent and walk away. I am still within my rights to take a photograph.

The right to free press. If I have a truthful representation, be it verbal or pictographic, of an event that I witnessed, I have the right to publish it. I have the right to sell it. And even if there are people depicted in my published document, they are not entitled for compensation for my profiting from their actions or likeness.

So it summary, yes, women would certainly still have the right to complain about being stared at in public. That is their freedom of speech.

I would also like to note that I come from a state in the USA where it is legal for women to be topless it public. I believe the indecent exposure laws are worded so as to outlaw only the display of genitalia, although I am not positive on that wording. Regardless, I have never seen any woman topless in public in the normal course of life there. This is mostly a societal-norm thing, and presumably also from widespread lack of knowledge about the legality of toplessness. There have, however, been some high-profile topless marches in the city streets for one cause or another.

Qaanol wrote:The right to free press. If I have a truthful representation, be it verbal or pictographic, of an event that I witnessed, I have the right to publish it. I have the right to sell it. And even if there are people depicted in my published document, they are not entitled for compensation for my profiting from their actions or likeness.

Your statement is not entirely true, or perhaps just worded a little too loosely, especially the last two sentences. As soon as it becomes a sale for commercial use, you need releases. Pictures for use by the press* for editorial or for the purposes of reporting* public events* are fair game.

* Definitions with far more depth than a forum post can adequately delineate

Qaanol wrote:The right of people to free speech. If I see someone who I want to take a picture of, I am completely within my rights to say “Excuse me, will you pose for a photograph please?” She is completely within her rights to say, “I find your objectification of my body entirely objectionable,” or to remain silent and walk away. I am still within my rights to take a photograph.

Is this actually true? I would think that if someone was in public and someone took a photo, that would be normally be legal. Here, however, it seems like you've crossed a line. You've (seemingly politely) ask for a picture, she's made it clear that she wouldn't approve.

The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

Qaanol wrote:The right of people to free speech. If I see someone who I want to take a picture of, I am completely within my rights to say “Excuse me, will you pose for a photograph please?” She is completely within her rights to say, “I find your objectification of my body entirely objectionable,” or to remain silent and walk away. I am still within my rights to take a photograph.

Is this actually true? I would think that if someone was in public and someone took a photo, that would be normally be legal. Here, however, it seems like you've crossed a line. You've (seemingly politely) ask for a picture, she's made it clear that she wouldn't approve.

What would be the point of making it illegal? You could circumvent such a restriction (moral or legal) by simply not asking.

Well, you seem to think it would be okay to follow someone around snapping pictures of their genital region after they've asked you to stop, so I think we already know your opinion. I'm fairly certain that you can find precedent for it being deemed harassment to take pictures after it's been made clear that they aren't welcome.

The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

It depends. Reporters and artists often fall back on the "sidewalk rule" that has some legal precedence: if it's in a public area, or can be seen from a public area, then taking a picture of it is basically the same as a guy on the sidewalk looking at it. But that's for reporters and artists, I don't know what the ethics would be as applied to some schmuck.

tenet |ˈtenit|nouna principle or belief, esp. one of the main principles of a religion or philosophy : the tenets of classical liberalism.tenant |ˈtenənt|nouna person who occupies land or property rented from a landlord.

Well, you seem to think it would be okay to follow someone around snapping pictures of their genital region after they've asked you to stop, so I think we already know your opinion. I'm fairly certain that you can find precedent for it being deemed harassment to take pictures after it's been made clear that they aren't welcome.

I don't think he was talking about the genital region specifically. Nor was he talking about following someone around. He said specifically that it is within his rights to take a picture of someone, in public, with or without their consent. Publication, especially publication for profit, can be a bit more tricky, but even that is probably approaching the limits of enforceability--if someone snaps a picture of me and posts it on Facebook, for example, I have very little recourse, legal or otherwise, to get it removed.

The Great Hippo wrote:

LaserGuy wrote:I'm passing no judgment on the correctness of the response, simply saying that if someone breaks a particularly strong social custom, they should not expect others maintain social conventions either.

Why not? You're not connecting any dots here; I agree that bare breasts is a breech of social conventions, and I agree that staring at someone's breasts (particularly when they make it clear they do not want you to stare) is a breech of social conventions. I don't see why one breech of social conventions automatically invites the other.

Well, that's how social conventions are enforced. If someone is engaging in a behaviour that is considered rude or antisocial (such as showing their breasts in public), then the response will be for others to behave antisocially towards them in order to attempt to correct that behaviour. The exact response depends on what the antisocial behaviour is to begin with, but for almost any antisocial behaviour that you can pick, you will find that there will be a predictable antisocial response from the aggrieved parties. Social conventions thus operate under a rather crude model of reward and punishment--social behaviours by the individual are rewarded by the group and antisocial behaviours are punished by the group. Arguing that one should be able to break some social rule without repercussion is not entirely dissimilar from arguing that one should be able to break the law without repercussion. Laws are just a formalization of particularly important social conventions.

If I were to cut in the front of a huge line waiting to get tickets for a concert, should I not expect some response, probably a quite aggressive one, I might add, from the people behind me? Would it make sense for me to claim that I'm being unjustly harassed if I get shouted at or insulted in this situation?

Well, you seem to think it would be okay to follow someone around snapping pictures of their genital region after they've asked you to stop, so I think we already know your opinion. I'm fairly certain that you can find precedent for it being deemed harassment to take pictures after it's been made clear that they aren't welcome.

I don't think he was talking about the genital region specifically. Nor was he talking about following someone around. He said specifically that it is within his rights to take a picture of someone, in public, with or without their consent. Publication, especially publication for profit, can be a bit more tricky, but even that is probably approaching the limits of enforceability--if someone snaps a picture of me and posts it on Facebook, for example, I have very little recourse, legal or otherwise, to get it removed.

Some earlier happenings in the thread caused me to infer that. The genital region was specifically mentioned, but he hasn't responded on that post.

You are correct in the laws governing taking photos of people in public. In and of itself, taking a picture of what someone is doing publicly is not illegal, nor is it unethical in my opinion. My question is, legally and ethically, where does it become wrong. Ethically, I'd say when they explicitly don't consent, you shouldn't take a picture of them, but if you're taking a picture of something else that they happen to be in/near, it's probably fine. Legally, I would imagine you could get nailed for harassment if you weren't doing it for journalistic purposes, but I couldn't find anything either way.

I expect it's a case of "easier to ask forgiveness than permission".

I decided to retract my statement about automatically being a douchebag for taking pictures of unusual people. Someone who has an awesome tattoo, or riding a unicycle, or in a neat costume might well get pictures taken of him. With the current culture, though, it seems taking pictures of a woman breastfeeding, a lesbian couple kissing, a transperson who looks unusual because of it, or a woman in a revealing outfit, or a man in a speedo... are all potentially offensive. I think of snapping photos of topless women as being similar, you need to be careful how it might come across.

Upskirt shots, etc are clearly unethical... the person had a reasonable expectation that they were being covered.

The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

LazerGuy wrote:If I were to cut in the front of a huge line waiting to get tickets for a concert, should I not expect some response, probably a quite aggressive one, I might add, from the people behind me? Would it make sense for me to claim that I'm being unjustly harassed if I get shouted at or insulted in this situation?

If only women were allowed to wait in the line, then, yes, you should cut the line in order to be able to get tickets at all, and you should complain about the response you get just as much as you should complain about the fact that you weren't allowed to wait in the line in the first place. I've made the analogy very bizarre with that addition, but that's because the topfree movement has a serious problem with the social expectation that men can show their chests while women cannot. You seem to be ignoring the reason topfree activists are breaking the social convention, which makes your analogies and arguments irrelevant to the question at hand. Topfree activists can expect to be unjustly harassed for going topless in this imperfect world. The likelihood that something will happen does not somehow make it just or right.

I really don't like the title of this thread. It implies that this thread should be about whether the topfree movement is itself internally inconsistent, instead of whether complaining about harassment or objectification or being started at makes sense for members of the topfree movement.

Regardless of whether or not that's the why, that isn't the should; remember that we aren't talking about the way things are but rather the way things should be.

LaserGuy wrote:Arguing that one should be able to break some social rule without repercussion is not entirely dissimilar from arguing that one should be able to break the law without repercussion. Laws are just a formalization of particularly important social conventions.

Right, and we actually have the perfect parallel here; when I knowingly break an unjust law, am I allowed to complain about the enforcement of that unjust law?

On one level I accept that the law will be enforced and I will be punished, but on another level the very act of breaking an unjust law is a way of challenging it, and challenging the response, and trying to diminish that response. I have every right to complain about the response--demean and deride it and describe it as wrong--because the response, much like the law, is unjust.

Qaanol wrote:The right to free press. If I have a truthful representation, be it verbal or pictographic, of an event that I witnessed, I have the right to publish it. I have the right to sell it. And even if there are people depicted in my published document, they are not entitled for compensation for my profiting from their actions or likeness.

Your statement is not entirely true, or perhaps just worded a little too loosely, especially the last two sentences. As soon as it becomes a sale for commercial use, you need releases. Pictures for use by the press* for editorial or for the purposes of reporting* public events* are fair game.

* Definitions with far more depth than a forum post can adequately delineate

Anyone with the ability to publish is a member of the press. I hesitate to employ a slippery-slope argument, but you really don’t want to start restricting who counts as a member of the press, and certainly not based on the content of what is published (with very few exceptions à la libel, sedition, etc.)

Роберт wrote:

Qaanol wrote:The right of people to free speech. If I see someone who I want to take a picture of, I am completely within my rights to say “Excuse me, will you pose for a photograph please?” She is completely within her rights to say, “I find your objectification of my body entirely objectionable,” or to remain silent and walk away. I am still within my rights to take a photograph.

Is this actually true? I would think that if someone was in public and someone took a photo, that would be normally be legal. Here, however, it seems like you've crossed a line. You've (seemingly politely) ask for a picture, she's made it clear that she wouldn't approve.

I actually was trying to be sneaky, wording my example question so it was asking her to pose, not asking for her permission to take the picture, and her response was an opinion on the motivation of photographer, not a denial of consent.

Regardless, the standards for what would have to happen in order to invalidate the photographer’s freedom of the press should be quite high. They ought to be on par with what it would take to invalidate his freedom of speech. It would have to constitute harassment, which entails continued or repeated unwanted behavior. He’s not touching her, nor trying to get her to do anything, he’s just taking a picture of what he sees in public.

podbaydoor wrote:It depends. Reporters and artists often fall back on the "sidewalk rule" that has some legal precedence: if it's in a public area, or can be seen from a public area, then taking a picture of it is basically the same as a guy on the sidewalk looking at it. But that's for reporters and artists, I don't know what the ethics would be as applied to some schmuck.

Let’s take the specific example of a man with a camera, standing on a public sidewalk, taking a picture of a topless woman who is on that same sidewalk, without her consent. The man then takes those pictures, uploads them to a website, and charges money for people to look at them. This man is exercising his freedom of the press. The woman may not like it. Most members of the general populace may not like it. But he has a constitutionally protected right to publish accurate accounts of what he sees in public.

It would be a different matter entirely if the incident took place on private property. But in public, free speech and press must necessarily override any expectation of privacy.

Qaanol wrote:Anyone with the ability to publish is a member of the press. I hesitate to employ a slippery-slope argument, but you really don’t want to start restricting who counts as a member of the press, and certainly not based on the content of what is published (with very few exceptions à la libel, sedition, etc.).

Way to miss the point, and the asterisks.

You don't have the right to sell someone's image for commercial purposes without their permission. A quick run through google regarding when you do and don't need photography and/or variations on talent releases demonstrates things nicely.

Azrael wrote:You don't have the right to sell someone's image for commercial purposes without their permission. A quick run through google regarding when you do and don't need photography and/or variations on talent releases demonstrates things nicely.

That may well be true. If there are such laws, and they are as broad in scope as you seem to imply, then I disagree with them on principle. If someone takes a picture of me in public, I do not expect any recompense if it is sold for profit.

A caveat: if my likeness is used in an advertisement without my permission, then I will likely sue because that gives the inaccurate impression of my having endorsed the product or service being advertised, and as such is no longer a truthful representation of what occurred. I am sure there are other situations that would fall into such exception classes.

But in general, as long as the representation of events is not misleading, I see very few situations in which its sale should be restricted.

That said, we are rather off the topic of this thread, so I will reiterate my response to the original post, and then bow out: changes to laws regarding acceptable dress do not in any way alter constitutional freedom of speech. Choosing to clothe oneself a certain way does not cause a person to forfeit any of their rights to express opinions.

Qaanol wrote:That said, we are rather off the topic of this thread, so I will reiterate my response to the original post, and then bow out: changes to laws regarding acceptable dress do not in any way alter constitutional freedom of speech. Choosing to clothe oneself a certain way does not cause a person to forfeit any of their rights to express opinions.

How about the opinion that certain bodyparts should be 'normal' and not sexualized or hidden? How about wearing religious symbols? How about advertising your taste in music through your clothing? How about political slogans? How about displaying a flag (national or other) on your clothing?

Qaanol wrote:That said, we are rather off the topic of this thread, so I will reiterate my response to the original post, and then bow out: changes to laws regarding acceptable dress do not in any way alter constitutional freedom of speech. Choosing to clothe oneself a certain way does not cause a person to forfeit any of their rights to express opinions.

How about the opinion that certain bodyparts should be 'normal' and not sexualized or hidden? How about wearing religious symbols? How about advertising your taste in music through your clothing? How about political slogans? How about displaying a flag (national or other) on your clothing?

If you believe that a given body part shouldn't be hidden, why should you care about people looking at it? In the case of music tastes, political slogans, etc., you're probably actively advertising something and want to be seen and have your opinions known (and, you should be able to predict, judged).

Religious symbols are more of a gray area because they may be displayed for personal spiritual reasons rather than to remind everybody what your religious affiliation is.

Qaanol wrote:That said, we are rather off the topic of this thread, so I will reiterate my response to the original post, and then bow out: changes to laws regarding acceptable dress do not in any way alter constitutional freedom of speech. Choosing to clothe oneself a certain way does not cause a person to forfeit any of their rights to express opinions.

How about the opinion that certain bodyparts should be 'normal' and not sexualized or hidden? How about wearing religious symbols? How about advertising your taste in music through your clothing? How about political slogans? How about displaying a flag (national or other) on your clothing?

If you believe that a given body part shouldn't be hidden, why should you care about people looking at it? In the case of music tastes, political slogans, etc., you're probably actively advertising something and want to be seen and have your opinions known (and, you should be able to predict, judged).

I'm replying to the idea that clothing (or lack thereof) does not fall under freedom of speech/expression. I'm not sure how your response fits into that.

lutzj wrote:If you believe that a given body part shouldn't be hidden, why should you care about people looking at it?

Just because you don't want bare breast to be sexualized, doesn't mean the people you encounter will treat them that way. You will be still be treated as if you are performing a sexually enticing act, even if you didn't intend to.

For comparison, there are quite some countries where a woman showing bare shoulders or knees, or wearing tight jeans, is seen as a somewhat sexual act. Perhaps not directly comparable to showing bare breasts, but at least comparable to men showing off their naked muscled upper body.

It's pretty common that women tourists bring their normal outfits, which they themselves do not in any way consider as particularly sexually enticing, and discover that they get treated as sluts. Local people who consider themselves decent people are unfriendly and unwilling to help, and rude young men make offers and remarks you don't want to hear. Things that wouldn't happen if they wore the same clothes back at home.

So you can't ignore other people's reactions, even if you personally think a particular act doesn't carry a particular implication,

This is likely to be a state (that of men being topless) which varies widely from area to area; in my locale (Northern Australia) it is so common as to be entirely unremarkable, while in say, Norway, the situation is likely to be very different.

If one were to bare one's own breasts in public, one would expect stares. If you don't think of it as sexual, and others do, you're not going to be able to stop that. As has been said here, a woman can complain as is her right, but I'd highly doubt her ability to do anything more than that unless sexual touching or the instilling of fear were to happen next.

Only a decade for bare breasts to be common place and having men pay no attention to them? Because men NEVER ogle a woman's legs and upper thighs. It's commonplace, women can show ankle and wear skirts above the knee. They've been able to for a while. Shaking your hips while dancing is also commonplace, and so it is not sexually charged. It's just something people do, y'know? It's as sexually charged as a Waltz or square dance. A man who can't gyrate against elderly relatives is no man.

The point I'm trying to get across is that some things are sexually charged, and will stay that way. If you live in a state where you can be topless, go ahead, but expecting people to just consider it as normal is not going to be possible without a major shift in culture. If it really worked that way, showing genitalia should be fine now, as skirts should have been able to evolve into headbands for your waist because overtime people would just not care. Ten years, that's all.

Aside from any of that, it just seems impractical. Guys don't walk around half naked all day. They could, and if this is just a forbidden fruit thing, then whatever. Perhaps if they legalized this nationally, it would lower the amount of women wanting to do it. They would have the ability, but perhaps that's all that would matter. As said, being half naked is impractical. Clothes don't exist to cover up sexual organs, they exist to warm you. If you want to shovel snow in New York half naked to promote your stip club, so be it. (True story)

Wodashin wrote:Only a decade for bare breasts to be common place and having men pay no attention to them? Because men NEVER ogle a woman's legs and upper thighs. It's commonplace, women can show ankle and wear skirts above the knee. They've been able to for a while. Shaking your hips while dancing is also commonplace, and so it is not sexually charged. It's just something people do, y'know? It's as sexually charged as a Waltz or square dance. A man who can't gyrate against elderly relatives is no man.

People no longer oogle ankles in America. Do you think it has anything to do with the fact that bare ankles have become commonplace? Perhaps sexualization requires a certain degree of mystique; so long as something is hidden, we will fetishize it.

Wodashin wrote:Clothes don't exist to cover up sexual organs, they exist to warm you. If you want to shovel snow in New York half naked to promote your stip club, so be it. (True story)

Which is why when it hits the 90s in New York City, the streets are just full of sweaty, naked people. I mean, seriously. Bring a shovel; you're gonna have to dig your way to the subway.

im just curious... do we not already stare at lady boobs? in the summer time, thanks to tube tops i already see boobs that are just barely restrained and even so i hear the women complain that men stare. not to sound sexist but women display their breasts for some kind of attention (non nudist women, and even some nudist women) but they complain cause of the unwanted attention from men they dont want to attract.having ones cake and eating it too is as old as man himself, why wouldnt you want to eat your cake if you had it? but everything in life is a trade off. anyone expecting both is immature and unreasonable.

come on, boobs are meant to be stared at. thats half the reason they're there. no reason to be worried about people staring, its a compliment.the real cake is that they'd complain if people didnt stare.

The Great Hippo wrote:People no longer oogle ankles in America. Do you think it has anything to do with the fact that bare ankles have become commonplace? Perhaps sexualization requires a certain degree of mystique; so long as something is hidden, we will fetishize it.

I don't see this argument going very far. These days finding boobs is really easy yet people still take a peek when they see them.

Glass Fractal wrote:I don't see this argument going very far. These days finding boobs is really easy yet people still take a peek when they see them.

You can go online and see them; you can't ask the woman you just met to show you them. I'd hedge a bet that the more conservative a society is, the more profitable its pornography industry potentially is.

There are fetishes out there for bare-footed bug squishing, but it's not something you come across regularly. I'm not claiming people would stop fetishizing breasts everywhere; however, I am claiming that our obsession over them would greatly diminish.

Practically EVERYONE attracted to females has a fetish for breasts. Hippo is referring to the overall cultural fetishization of breasts, not an individual's sexual preferences. And in that sense, he might have a point. Some people are sexually attracted to ankles or feet, but women who bare them in public are no longer shunned as sluts or harlots.

"It's Saturday night. I've got no date, a two-liter of Shasta, and my all-Rush mixtape. Let's rock!""I am just about to be brilliant!"

General_Norris, on feminism, wrote:If you lose your six Pokémon, you lost.

Even if this should be legalized, it won't be commonplace for a long whiles, and it would never be allowed in polite society, just like how a man can't just up and undress wherever he likes. Sure, you could be topless at the beach, and maybe lounge around the house half naked, but there aren't many places where being topless is acceptable for the male gender. I guess if this is just for the right to be able to, then that makes sense, but it will never really be commonplace. You could see breasts in movies rated under R, you could see them on TV, and perhaps they would no longer be sexualized after a long whiles, but there isn't really a practical point.

Why do we only point out ankles? Cleavage has been a thing for a long time, shouldn't it just be commonplace? Shouldn't it be as sexy as an ankle? Shouldn't the upper leg be as sexy as an ankle?

Legalizing this won't let you walk the streets without being ogled or looked at oddly. A man walks down a crowded street without his shirt, people are going to notice that. Clothes aren't just for covering your genitals and breasts either, so you can't really practice nudism in most places. Apparently you can bare breasts in Canada, most don't. Breasts are sexualized there. Why?

Wodashin wrote:Why do we only point out ankles? Cleavage has been a thing for a long time, shouldn't it just be commonplace? Shouldn't it be as sexy as an ankle? Shouldn't the upper leg be as sexy as an ankle?

Cleavage has gone back and forth; I've seen people criticized for baring it quite regularly, actually (in one instance, I actually witnessed a customer tell a coworker that she needs to pull up her shirt). If you want other examples besides the ankle, you'll see similar cases with bare arms (which are still scandalous in places throughout the world), shoulders, wrists, and necks.

It is actually pretty funny to see all this hullabaloo unfold because of this movement. I think its fine, but jerks will be jerks. A few second stare is, in my mind, acceptable. following/overly lewd comments: not OK. But in the VI its all irrelevant anyway. Women go to the beaches and occasionally on the streets without tops. Most people stare a second or two, and then get over it. Of course, people here are very non-intrusive. Very rarely do you hear anything lewd/rude, except form the rich kids at the private schools, and only then about people they know, not strangers. I live in a really weird place.

Jahoclave wrote:Luckily they forgot the bacon, otherwise we'd be screwed.

ya people have very good points. if one women walked down a crowded street and she was the only topless person around then people would stare cause its out of the ordinary, this point was stated before so sorry for the repeat but if it was a lot more common then we would have to ignore it a lot more just for the simple fact that we have stuff to do and cant boobie watch all day.as for it becoming a common thing, it would simply take one generation, if the kids grew up seeing it all the time then when they become teenagers and adults they wouldnt think twice about it.it just has to start at some point and it would be rough at first just like all social changes but it would be forgotten just a quickly then we could get on with our lives. and what lives they would be.

Still, I feel that you guys are simplifying this too much. It wouldn't simply take a generation. Men can be topless. CAN, but you don't see guys walking around without a shirt on unless you're at the beach. If you're walking down the street in the winter and a guy is walking shirtless because he can, you will look upon him oddly. It doesn't make sense. Why? The ability to do something does not make it normal or practical. You CAN shoot whales from a moving vehicle legally in California, it's the law. It doesn't happen often. Bare breasts might become commonplace in coastal towns with warm climates, but aside from that, I'm seeing this as a thing of ability rather than need.

Wodashin wrote:Still, I feel that you guys are simplifying this too much. It wouldn't simply take a generation. Men can be topless. CAN, but you don't see guys walking around without a shirt on unless you're at the beach. If you're walking down the street in the winter and a guy is walking shirtless because he can, you will look upon him oddly. It doesn't make sense. Why? The ability to do something does not make it normal or practical. You CAN shoot whales from a moving vehicle legally in California, it's the law. It doesn't happen often. Bare breasts might become commonplace in coastal towns with warm climates, but aside from that, I'm seeing this as a thing of ability rather than need.

Huh. Well ya, it would be weird to see a guy walking in the snow without a shirt. That would just kinda be stupid on his part. But like you said he still has the right according to the law, so why shouldn't a lady also be allowed to make that same choice and why should it be considered one step more odd? I guess i don't fully understand the point you are trying to make, I still think what is considered to be odd differs from generation to generation and what may seem obscene to one generation could be commonplace in the next. So only the first brave Topfree generation would have to go without eating their cake. But all the people who start the fight for social change have to make sacrifices.

Wodashin wrote:Still, I feel that you guys are simplifying this too much. It wouldn't simply take a generation. Men can be topless. CAN, but you don't see guys walking around without a shirt on unless you're at the beach. If you're walking down the street in the winter and a guy is walking shirtless because he can, you will look upon him oddly. It doesn't make sense. Why? The ability to do something does not make it normal or practical. You CAN shoot whales from a moving vehicle legally in California, it's the law. It doesn't happen often. Bare breasts might become commonplace in coastal towns with warm climates, but aside from that, I'm seeing this as a thing of ability rather than need.

I don't think the women are asking for anything more or less than what the men have.

The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

No one seriously thinks that women walking around without tops will be a normal occurrence. It will pretty much always be unusual. Most males don't walk around without shirts (private businesses usually require shirts, even) and a lot of the things guys take off their shirt for (hard physical activity, pickup sports games) would be really annoying to do topless. Trying to play sports without a sports bra would be silly for me, even more so for ladies with more going on in the chest department.

So yes, it will always draw second glances. That's presumably not what the women in the original post, nor any other pro-topfree women are complaining about. They are complaining about the fact that if they were to go out topless, they'd draw sexual stares. Not stares of "wow that's weird." And they're not even saying "guys should stop liking breasts so we don't have to wear shirts!" I'm getting more "guys like breasts, so if I didn't wear a shirt, they'd stare at me and that would be annoying! Therefore, I may keep wearing a shirt, though in an ideal world, they would not sexualize breasts and I could go topless."

omgryebread wrote:No one seriously thinks that women walking around without tops will be a normal occurrence. It will pretty much always be unusual. Most males don't walk around without shirts (private businesses usually require shirts, even) and a lot of the things guys take off their shirt for (hard physical activity, pickup sports games) would be really annoying to do topless. Trying to play sports without a sports bra would be silly for me, even more so for ladies with more going on in the chest department.

You are right in a certain context. It would never be normal for a women to just walk around topless anywhere like to a business meeting as much as it would be for a dude. But that doesn't mean it couldn't become normal for a women to be topless in appropriate situations of just walking around town on a hot day just as plenty of guys do. Granted there aren't many times/places in our culture where even partial nudity is accepted but if given the opportunity that has the possibility of change also.

omgryebread wrote:So yes, it will always draw second glances. That's presumably not what the women in the original post, nor any other pro-topfree women are complaining about. They are complaining about the fact that if they were to go out topless, they'd draw sexual stares. Not stares of "wow that's weird." And they're not even saying "guys should stop liking breasts so we don't have to wear shirts!" I'm getting more "guys like breasts, so if I didn't wear a shirt, they'd stare at me and that would be annoying! Therefore, I may keep wearing a shirt, though in an ideal world, they would not sexualize breasts and I could go topless."

Speaking from a guys perspective (not that i can speak for all men) the boobies aren't the only thing that would be stared at. I really honestly believe that the average man would still spend equal time staring at the other attractive parts of the female body (butt, legs, face) even if the breasts were exposed. If not more time simply because its like "ok, well i know what her boobs look like, now if only i could get a peek at that ass." The guys who would sit and stare are the same guys who do that regardless of whether you're wearing a top or not. In western culture it is ingrained in us that we need decency and shame but in many more "primitive" cultures the women never wear tops and they get along just fine. I'm sure the men still see them in the same sexual way but theres no point in staring at something that you're gonna see day in, day out.

As for the actual question: do women have the right to go topless and complain when guys stare?I think its phrased poorly because of course they have the right to free speech, its hard to debate that one. but does it make any sense to complain? No. obviously from the things women have said they understand that it would draw attention, so going into it they understand that=men will stare=they will get annoyed. so the question they should ask themselves before the go out is, is it worth it to me? is it worth being annoyed to be topless? If not, don't. If so, do, and don't complain about it.

Thank you ladies, I look forward to hopefully seeing you all soon. (just kidding of course)...kinda.

There was a study done recently that showed that the instinctual response for a man to focus on a womens breasts is faster then the ability for him to perceive the fact he is doing so. The brain sends a signal to look faster then the signal that says don't look, its impolite. I'm not sure if I'm allowed to post a link but feel free to google it.

bloatyspizzahog wrote:As for the actual question: do women have the right to go topless and complain when guys stare?I think its phrased poorly because of course they have the right to free speech, its hard to debate that one. but does it make any sense to complain? No. obviously from the things women have said they understand that it would draw attention, so going into it they understand that=men will stare=they will get annoyed. so the question they should ask themselves before the go out is, is it worth it to me? is it worth being annoyed to be topless? If not, don't. If so, do, and don't complain about it.

This doesn't make sense. Don't people complain about things they should expect all the time? Why are there no SB topics complaining about how every winter, people complain about how it's so cold? No one says "is it worth being annoyed about cold to stay in temperate zones? If not, move to Brazil. If so, stay here, and don't complain." Because people complain about things they don't like, even if there's some solution. People complain about traffic, but don't take the train, they complain about the price of cigarettes but don't try to stop smoking, etc. Should they stop complaining? Maybe, but that's just a silly debate.

Granted, moving to Brazil, taking the train, and stopping smoking are all (possibly) harder than putting on a shirt. I can't really speak for it, since I don't have any desire to go topless, but presumably these woman find shirts pretty inconvenient, so I don't see why they shouldn't go topless, and be perfectly comfortable complaining all they want.